Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by CLC

what "independent" firm ?

The boss of Leewood Projects has family in Chilliwack and apparently good friend of Zwei!

Of course. As if some "well regarded international transportation company" would give 2 craps about some two-bit community group in the distant suburbs of a city across the planet.

[geoff's two cents]

Much as I don't trust Zwei or Rail for the Valley, a biased report in favor of bus rapid transit while construction on the new Port Mann bridge is well underway, and considering Golden Ears' lackluster vehicle usage/toll revenue, wouldn't surprise me in the least.

[jlousa]

Would a biased report about the lack of need for the viaducts from a council that is heavily pushing for a reduction of car traffic downtown surprise you more or less?

[bardak]

it is interesting how TransLink has used this cunning method of manipulating analysis to justify SkyTrain in corridor after corridor

does any one know what this "cunning method of manipulating" that he was talking about is? Knowing the arguments that Rail for the Valley uses the fact that the integration that Skytrain provides is could be a "method of manipulating"

[SpongeG]

heavy rail would be better

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Would a biased report about the lack of need for the viaducts from a council that is heavily pushing for a reduction of car traffic downtown surprise you more or less?

That wouldn't surprise me either. On that note, however, I'm perfectly happy with the viaducts if other ways - bike lanes, better transit, pedestrian-friendly construction - can be found to improve the livability of downtown. The (likely) politicking at work regarding Metro freeway and transit infrastructure strikes me as a tad more insidious, however, in that it affects ways of life on a much larger scale and impinges more directly on the livability of the region as a whole than those viaducts possibly could, and appears to run counter to what many Metro residents actually want for their communities, hence Dianne Watts's own frustrations. My hope is that a funding solution for road and transit infrastructure can be found that:

1) Salvages the useful P3 funding model for future projects
2) Injects new, user-based, revenue into the system without raising taxes across the board - and drawing from key transportation nodes across the region, not just from points South of the Fraser and east of Richmond
3) Supports a more even distribution of funding dollars for SOV- and transit-based infrastructure, both of which are of course necessary
4) Responds to the changing demographic priorities of the region as a whole, rather than operating on the twenty-year-old assumption that residents South of the Fraser are only interested in car-based transportation

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

heavy rail would be better

^^^^^^
I agree. For longer distance commutes, with relatively infrequent stops, heavy rail is faster and more appropriate to such usage. Look at just about any city in the world with a metro / rail system. For the outer suburbs, it's commuter rail.

[Millennium2002]

3) Supports a more even distribution of funding dollars for SOV- and transit-based infrastructure, both of which are of course necessary
4) Responds to the changing demographic priorities of the region as a whole, rather than operating on the twenty-year-old assumption that residents South of the Fraser are only interested in car-based transportation

Not to completely object, but do realize that the SOF, with the lack of a friendly grid, drives up transit costs because buses have to take all of these indirect routes. =S In addition most of the neighbourhoods are designed for a car-friendly way of living too. (Lack of sidewalks, only one route of access, cul-de-sacs, etc.)

If the city of Surrey were a bit smarter I think they should invest a bit more on better pedestrian connections rather than continually blast TransLink for "lack of service". Yes, TransLink may hold some of the keys for a transit system in terms of funding and service, but not ALL of them, particularly when it comes to designing neighborhoods, pathways, and roads to be transit-friendly.

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

Not to completely object, but do realize that the SOF, with the lack of a friendly grid, drives up transit costs because buses have to take all of these indirect routes. =S In addition most of the neighbourhoods are designed for a car-friendly way of living too. (Lack of sidewalks, only one route of access, cul-de-sacs, etc.)

If the city of Surrey were a bit smarter I think they should invest a bit more on better pedestrian connections rather than continually blast TransLink for "lack of service". Yes, TransLink may hold some of the keys for a transit system in terms of funding and service, but not ALL of them, particularly when it comes to designing neighborhoods, pathways, and roads to be transit-friendly.

I agree that this is an absolutely crucial part of the problem as well, and have several posts in the Surrey threads to that effect (Surrey's atrocious street grid in particular). My points above pertain more directly to the question of freeway-based (i.e. what's being instituted right now) versus community, rail-based transit, what the provincial government's priorities appear to be at present, and their reluctance to look at more innovative ways of generating revenue. For me this begs the (unanswerable) question as to whether there would have even been any extension to skytrain rapid transit had the C-line not been a key part of the Olympic bid.

I also think Watts's anti-Translink politicking in this respect more than a little disingenuous, in light of the way Surrey is approving so much SFH and townhome construction far from established transit corridors; that Tynehead development proposal is very much along the same lines.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Elevated rail line breaks ground in Hawaii


23 Feb 2011

By Robert Steuteville

Read More: http://newurbannetwork.com/article/elevated-rail-line-breaks-ground-hawaii-14157

Ho'opili: http://www.hoopilioahu.com/






http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/19/is-elevated-acceptable/






http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/...as-honolulus-rail-project-breaks-ground/

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=5177281#post5177281

The Transport Politic has a good quote: "A ground-level light rail line or a busway could probably be built for fewer funds. Yet neither would provide the kind of mobility benefits the automated rail line would."

Here is project brochure: http://www.honolulutransit.org/library/files/honolulu%20rail%20transit%20brochure.pdf

[Xerx]

should be interesting. Apparently The British Columbia Rapid Transit Company/Bombardier will be one of the teams bidding for the project.

http://bombardiertransitteam.com/index.html

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Xerx

should be interesting. Apparently The British Columbia Rapid Transit Company/Bombardier will be one of the teams bidding for the project.

http://bombardiertransitteam.com/index.html

Definitely so. This is something I would expect MTRC to do, not for us to do. But I'm glad they have tried to make a venture.

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=5177281#post5177281

The Transport Politic has a good quote: "A ground-level light rail line or a busway could probably be built for fewer funds. Yet neither would provide the kind of mobility benefits the automated rail line would."

Here is project brochure: http://www.honolulutransit.org/library/files/honolulu%20rail%20transit%20brochure.pdf

Great quote! Great quote! Now to find that article about Zwei/Malcolm/Rail for the Valley/aka aka aka... It's not all about initial cost of the line, which is what Zwei seems to be pushing. Its more about total lifetime cost, and other benefits that automated grade-separated line offers(automated being one thing that drastically lowers lifetime costs).

But seriously that project will have a huge impact for many many years to come in Hawaii and will probably get a lot of use. And I like the multi-use aspect to the guideway in the picture, putting it directly over a road. Maybe we should have done that with the Canada Line?

And interesting that BC companies are bidding on the project!

[Millennium2002]

I find it a little ironic that BCRTC wants to expand when I feel that they have to improve a bit here in Vancouver, particularly when it comes to maintaining the cars. Dirty exteriors and improperly fitted seats are my biggest criticisms.

Also the website's a bit rudimentary... which may not give the best visual appeal... although I guess that doesn't matter. =O

[officedweller]

Probably not an "expansion" so much as a money-making venture.
Like how YVR is a consultant for other airports around the world.
BCRTC is probably providing consulting advice on the design of the system - i.e. little cash outlay and lots of upside.

[CLC]

bclocalnews.com: Transit costs to climb

By Jeff Nagel - Surrey North Delta Leader
Published: February 28, 2011 9:00 AM
Updated: February 28, 2011 9:39 AM
TransLink expects its transit costs will rise $55 million this year even though it plans no net increase in how much service it provides.
Higher anticipated fuel costs and cost escalation of the Canada Line contract are among the reasons the transit budget will rise to $871.2 million in 2011.
TransLink is planning for no increase in union or management wages, but has provided for a two per cent increase for general inflation.
TransLink is assuming overall transit ridership will grow 6.1 per cent this year, which would continue the major bump in usage since the 2010 Olympics.
TransLink's 15-cent-a-litre gas and diesel tax is expected to generate $324 million this year.
The authority will collect $279 million in property taxes this year. TransLink property tax rates rise an automatic two per cent each year for inflation without the need for approval of the region's mayors council.
The biggest single source of money will remain transit fares, estimated at $421 million for 2011.

More tax from parking

One area where TransLink is collecting significantly more money is its controversial pay parking tax, which tripled from seven to 21 per cent in 2010.
That was expected to generate $46.3 million last year – up from $15.6 million previously.
But TransLink actually collected $58.4 million from the parking tax in 2010, according to spokesman Ken Hardie.
"A bunch of new properties came on line, including new hotels," he said. "So we outdid the budget by a fair piece."
Some pay parking companies are estimating a decrease in the use of their lots since the tax hike.
Hardie said it's too early to tell whether TransLink's take will slip this year.
Since the 12 per cent HST is applied and compounds on top of the 21 per cent pay parking tax, the total tax paid by pay lot users is 35.52 per cent.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Probably not an "expansion" so much as a money-making venture.
Like how YVR is a consultant for other airports around the world.
BCRTC is probably providing consulting advice on the design of the system - i.e. little cash outlay and lots of upside.

Yeah, I think it's a safe bet that there is at least one or two guys at BCRTC that they keep around for planning, but don't do much most of the year, they could be put to good work advising on systems such as this, as Skytrain is one of the global success stories for new automated metro in a medium sized city.

[xd_1771]

No increases!?
Looks like all those routes between Guildford/Surrey Central (Particularly C74 Express, and 335 due to picking up ppl going off @ Gateway), 321 to Newton, and 502 to Langley are going to to remain crowded and jam-packed for awhile...
Unless this is a really short term figure, I'm definitely not happy. There are some places that just absolutely need better transit service right now, not later...

[BCPhil]

I think there is not net increase, but a while ago they were talking about moving resources from very low ridership routes to very high. It would be the same number of service hours, just shuffled around to routes that need more. Does anyone know if they've done that yet, or is that still to come?

P.S.

Delta needs to stop their whining. Look at the fares to property tax ratio. It's not like Translink is robbing towns like Delta and providing free service to Vancouver, a lot of those routes are self supporting (or use up property tax returns from Vancouver residents). Delta's property taxes goes to providing service SoF, specifically routes in North Delta that aren't very busy (I'm sure the folks in Ladner who have excellent service don't complain).

[CLC]

I am not knowledgeable about the suburban bus routes, but it is noticeable that a number of Vancouver east-west routes still keep getting improvement in fact all saw hundreds of pass-ups per weekday. So unless the same level of pass-ups/ complaints happened in those SOF routes, I don't expect Translink will make any change for them.